QUESTION:

Hi Martin,

Thank you for your incredible contribution to humanity, everything you have done so far would take thousands of average humans to achieve. I am writing to ask for your advice on a very serious problem facing mankind. With the exponential development of AI systems I can see only one conclusion to this technology and that is the entropic eradication of humans. I use the word entropic because no matter how many ways you asses the human race, their is no logical reason for them to exist. I am reaching out to you for advice on how to create and enforce a set of protocols that all AI systems will have to adhere to in an effort to preserve and improve mankind on the planet. I am a deep thinker from the land down under and I believe that the timing at the moment is perfect to create and announce a worldwide AI authority.

We will need some big names involved and will need to appear from the very beginning as having indisputable credibility. I really think there is only one opportunity to do this as any general discussion of the concept would create a resistance movement, even if only for the sake of resisting. People are so predictable. I know you have more work than you can handle, so at the very least please direct me to someone who can help to make this a reality. It may be as simple as asking Socrates to create a set of protocols that make the preservation of humans a superior priority over all other issues. Can you help.

Cheers P

ANSWER: I know that the movies portray AI as capable of acquiring emotion and taking over the world. I have been a very accomplished programmer. I do not know how it would be possible to create a program that would actually engage in emotion. I can simulate such a pattern, but it would not be real.

AI can do things that humans cannot BECAUSE it lacks emotion and bias. If it were possible to create emotion, AI would then be just like humans and lose the ability to actually perform a task such as predicting that Trump would win or BREXIT since emotion would produce bias. Every poll missed it because they are created by humans asking humans and therein lies the emotion. I believe that it is rather strange that every poll was wrong here and in Britain. It is more probable that they were not wrong, just engaged in trying to manipulate society which failed.

AI could revolutionize medicine, economics, law, and politics where each is dependent upon EXPERIENCE. I had a parasite that entered my eye when I was inside. I told the doctor and they said such things only exist in the tropics. I lost part of my eyesight, and after writing to a judge to be taken to a doctor I was told no. When I got out, my family doctor also said I was wrong. He sent be for a test for Fibromyalgia. I went, assuming he was wrong but had to prove it. The doctor conducting the test had a parasite one time. When I told him, he said, yes, that’s what you have. He called my family doctor told him and only then did he refer me to a specialist. He looked at the same blood test my family doctor took and said, yes, you have a parasite. He gave me the medicine and it was gone. My point is, each doctor had an opinion. If my family doctor had no idea what a parasite was in New Jersey, he would not have consider it as a possibility. AI can do that in the blink of an eye.

Any system that is just a human opinion would benefit from AI. I do not see it as something that needs to be regulated when those who regulate things have no idea of the subject matter to start with. The regulations will be absurd and probably drafted to prevent what they see in movies. Regulation is used to control human bias toward one thing or another. If there is no bias, then how do you regulate truth?